Wakilii

Musa Farouk v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1302 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 165 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending appeal to Court of Appeal
Decision
Application for stay of execution dismissed; criminal proceedings may continue pending appeal

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an application for stay of execution of its earlier order refusing to declare a criminal trial a nullity. The applicant sought to stay criminal proceedings pending appeal. The court held that while the applicant had filed a notice of appeal without undue delay, he failed to establish that he would suffer substantial loss that could not be atoned by damages, and failed to demonstrate with particularity the nature of the loss. The court found the results of the intended appeal were not obvious, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.

Outcome

Application for stay of execution dismissed; criminal proceedings may continue pending appeal

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 0174 of 2023 alleging violations of his constitutional rights including freedom from torture and unlawful detention for 14 days, and seeking a declaration that his trial in Criminal Case No. 852 of 2022 was a nullity. The High Court found his right to personal liberty under Article 23(4) was violated and awarded compensation, but declined to find torture proven or declare the criminal trial a nullity. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No. 1099 of 2024) and filed this application seeking to stay the criminal proceedings pending the appeal. The ruling was delivered on 13 December 2024, and the applicant filed his notice of appeal, memorandum of appeal, and this application on 19 December 2024.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant has demonstrated a likelihood of success on appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant will suffer substantial loss or irreparable damage if stay of execution is not granted.
  3. Whether the application was made without unreasonable delay.
  4. Whether the balance of convenience favours granting a stay of execution pending appeal.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court
Although there is no specific provision in the Civil Procedure Rules enabling the High Court to grant a stay of execution against its own decree pending an appeal, the Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant such stay, including stay of execution pending an appeal from a refusal to set aside an ex parte decree.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Principles for Grant
The principles governing stay of execution pending appeal require the applicant to show: (1) that a notice of appeal has been lodged; (2) that substantial loss may result unless stay is granted; (3) that the application has been made without unreasonable delay; (4) that security has been given for due performance of the decree; (5) that there is serious or imminent threat of execution; (6) that the appeal is not frivolous and has a likelihood of success; and (7) that refusal to grant stay would inflict more hardship than it would avoid.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Substantial Loss
Substantial loss does not mean the ordinary loss to which every judgment debtor is necessarily subjected when he loses his case and is deprived of his property in consequence. It must mean something in addition to and different from that. Substantial loss does not represent any particular amount or size, but refers to any loss, great or small, that is of real worth or value as distinguished from loss without value or that which is merely nominal.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Burden of Proof on Applicant
An applicant for stay of execution must demonstrate by affidavit evidence the kind of loss likely to be suffered that would not be atoned by way of damages or that would render the very essence of the appeal nugatory. Unless details and particulars of the loss are specified, there is no basis upon which the court can satisfy itself that such loss would really be incurred. Mere assertion of great loss is insufficient.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Likelihood of Success on Appeal
Where the results of an intended appeal are not obvious, the court ought to disregard a claim about the likelihood of success of the intended appeal. The court is not required at the stay application stage to consider the merits of the appeal, but only whether there are plausible or persuasive grounds of appeal.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (17)

  • Gashumba Maniraguha v Sam Nkudiye (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2015)
  • Hajji Edhiruma Said v Kabaale Florence & Anor (Civil Application No. 586 of 2024)
  • Sarah Kulata Basangwa v Inspectorate of Government (Miscellaneous Application No. 465 of 2011)
  • Kagumaho Kakuyo v Shilla Ninsiima (Miscellaneous Application No. 13 of 2020)
  • Francis Nansio Micar v Nuwa Walakara [1992] IV KALR 62
  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation [1992] V KALR 82
  • Elizabeth Nakanywagi v Sterling Civil Engineering (U) Ltd [1995] IV KALR 27
  • Nganga v Kimani [1969] 1 EA 67
  • Lawrence Musiitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Kyambogo University v Prof. Isaiah Omolo Ndiege (Court of Appeal Civil Application No. 341 of 2013)
  • Attorney General of Uganda v The East African Law Society & Anor (EACA Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • Equity Bank Uganda Ltd v Nicholas Were (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 0604 of 2013)
  • Socfinaf Ltd (Ruera Estate) v Abisagi Igoki [2018] KEHC 8762 (KLR)
  • Zanzibar Insurance Corporation v Chacha [2005] 2 EA 364
  • Kisawuzi v Dan Oundo Malingu (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 467 of 2013)
  • Tropical Commodities Suppliers Ltd and Ors v International Credit Bank Ltd (in Liquidation) (2004) EA 331
  • Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd v International Air Transport Association (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 86 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Musa Farouk v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 1302 of 2024) [2026] UGHCCD 165 (26 May 2026)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.